Happy commercial non-denominational autumn holiday

[Rex]

I'm not sure webcams are always a good idea. The Gronk may very well change his opinion on wet white bikinis. 🙂

Rex, I think your 'Atheism is another religion' line is extremely dependent on the definition of Atheism.

And your God comments depend on your definition of God.

Let's say scientists decide that everything in the universe is composed of pure energy. The energy is always the same, only the form of the energy (the pattern) changes. This energy then forms patterns that are dependent on surrounding energy patterns. So from a micro perspective, energy patterns evolve dependent on the causes and conditions around it. As in Darwin's survival of the fittest - just like he applies this rule to life forms, apply this to all energy patterns. So there is an intelligence in the patterns the energy form. A creative intelligence. Suppose you called this intelligence "God". Would you then have a difficulty "believing" in God? Why do you have to believe in it anyway. You've only named it. You don't have to "believe" in a tree when you name it.

Or suppose you simply defined God as "what is". How would that change your reading of the bible or other religious texts?

Or suppose shifting our society's current "scientific" obsession with physical forms. Suppose that instead of viewing us as physical objects that "somehow" have acquired a temporary "life force", you instead viewed us as a "life force" that has "somehow" taken on a temporary physical form. Suppose you named that life force God? Ye are the light of the world, etc.

At the same time, however, isn't the default position to believe that something doesn't exist until it is shown/proven that it does?

No

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The royal wedding is quite stirring. Sure do carry on about God a lot though.
Rex why try to reconcile believers and non-believers with your pantheist parable? Why can't one be right and one wrong?

 

[Rex]

When they're both wrong?

 

[The Gronk]

I'd also like to take this opportunity to express my approval of the modern day fashion for brazilians. The good lord knows I am no there to floss.


Oh yeah and I am a Jewish atheist. Work that one out.

 

[Rex]

The royal wedding is quite stirring. Sure do carry on about God a lot though.

How else do you suggest they keep the masses afraid, subservient and feeling deficient?

 

[codewana]

Rex, I think I get what you are trying to say.. its a bit hard through text though. I suppose when I argue against the existence of god, or at least resist the belief in the existence of god, I'm more hung up on the notion of a god that we understand and a god that rewards/punishes us because any other deity shouldn't affect one's life in any meaningful way. I'm not too concerned with understanding the origin of the universe because I don't think I'll have the capacity to fully grasp it even if it could be explained, much in the same way that I'll never grasp a myriad of other physics based theories.

To me, this discussion about the existence of god is all about a creator that some declare that they 'know' and that has some sort of contact with humans as that is the predominant crux of organised religion; one of the strongest surviving and influential memes of all time.

Gronk, when you say you're a jewish atheist I assume you enjoy the traditions, but could pass on the rituals? If so, then I guess you could lump me in that group too. It would certainly make my mum happier!

 

[ManlyBacker]

Let's say scientists decide that everything in the universe is composed of pure energy. The energy is always the same, only the form of the energy (the pattern) changes. This energy then forms patterns that are dependent on surrounding energy patterns. So from a micro perspective, energy patterns evolve dependent on the causes and conditions around it. As in Darwin's survival of the fittest - just like he applies this rule to life forms, apply this to all energy patterns. So there is an intelligence in the patterns the energy form. A creative intelligence. Suppose you called this intelligence "God". Would you then have a difficulty "believing" in God? Why do you have to believe in it anyway. You've only named it. You don't have to "believe" in a tree when you name it.

Or suppose you simply defined God as "what is". How would that change your reading of the bible or other religious texts?

Or suppose shifting our society's current "scientific" obsession with physical forms. Suppose that instead of viewing us as physical objects that "somehow" have acquired a temporary "life force", you instead viewed us as a "life force" that has "somehow" taken on a temporary physical form. Suppose you named that life force God? Ye are the light of the world, etc.

I'm getting the feeling Rex that you favour the energy theory as part of your thinking of what a God might be. Yes? My wife holds similar thoughts.

The issue I have is that when we look at theism (and let me pick up from Wiki as to what I am meaning - "Theism, in this specific sense (montheism), conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. ) then that is a long, long way from concepts of energy and inter-relations at any level - physical or otherwise. That is, a knowing link, a thought process, that says we have a direct relationship with a deity. Childlike views or otherwise.

Personally (and is it really me? 🙂) I would say our knowledge cosmologically (Wiki again and I agree "Cosmology in strict usage, refers to the study of the Universe in its totality as it is now (or at least as it can be observed now), and by extension, humanity's place in it.") is heading towards a pure energy format.

But in my opinion that energy is not equivalent to a 'God' or deity as most people discussing the subject would look at it. In my view again such a theory is so far removed from concepts of existing mainstream religions that it wouldn't/couldn't be considered for classification as a 'God' or deity.

 

[Rex]

I'm getting the feeling Rex that you favour the energy theory as part of your thinking of what a God might be. Yes? My wife holds similar thoughts.

Do I hold to "the energy theory" (whatever that means)? Does that mean do I believe this or some other theory about energy? No, I don't MB. Belief implies I'm no longer engaged with what is, I'm distracted onto my theory about what is. Do I need to believe in the sun? No, I just see it rise.

Do I see energy alive in everything, even rocks and other "inanimate" objects? Yes

Even rocks have a form of consciousness, That's what gravity (for example) is, isn't it? The rock is conscious of its surroundings and reacts to its surroundings. That is part of the intelligence of the energy which forms the rocks.

Do I know I am alive? And how? I feel the energy within. I look. It's a matter of perception, not belief. Seeing, not conceptualising. A friend had one leg removed at the hip following cancer. He observed he lost one quarter of his body weight. One quarter of "himself" removed by knife. He also observed that he felt exactly the same sense of who he was before and after the operation. He saw his leg was not him, he concluded he was not his body. Mind you if I were my body, a hell of a lot of me gets flushed down the loo.

The issue I have is that when we look at theism (and let me pick up from Wiki as to what I am meaning - "Theism, in this specific sense (montheism), conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. ) then that is a long, long way from concepts of energy and inter-relations at any level - physical or otherwise. That is, a knowing link, a thought process, that says we have a direct relationship with a deity. Childlike views or otherwise.

That definition of God could mean many different things. Suppose you (like most people) worship your thoughts, so your thoughts are your God. You would then see them (if sufficiently aware) as "personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." At first glance this might seem ridiculous, how can my thoughts impact the world, the universe? But look closely and you see sense perceptions pick up signals and from that moment on EVERYTHING we experience is an abstraction, an interpretation, a presumption of what is happening. We don't ultimately know it is true. From that perspective, we create the world, we create the universe. That perspective won't sit easily with people firmly caught in a traditional external physical "real" universe viewing lens, where there is the dualism of us and them, me and the universe. But look and you can see that the traditional view is an assumption, widely held, but still an assumption. Ultimately unprovable.

The paranoid believes everyone is out to get him. To that person his perspectives are very real. But they're a dream. Just like our dreams based on our own, peculiar faulty beliefs.

Words are tricky MB. They mean different things to different people, even to the same person at different times. I don't necessarily see a conflict between your Wiki definition of deity and what we are talking about with energy.

Personally (and is it really me? 🙂) I would say our knowledge cosmologically (Wiki again and I agree "Cosmology in strict usage, refers to the study of the Universe in its totality as it is now (or at least as it can be observed now), and by extension, humanity's place in it.") is heading towards a pure energy format.

It appears so. In investigating the atoms of solid matter, scientists found 99.99% of that matter is empty - space. The other 1 ten thousandth represented the particles of electrons, neutrons and protons. Then when they went into those particles to find the makeup of solid matter, they found that those particles were also 99.99% empty - space. And when they looked at the other 1 ten thousandth of these particles for the solid matter, they didn't find it there either. They found only energy. E=MC squared. Energy = matter.

This has been known in the East for two and a half thousand years, at least.

But in my opinion that energy is not equivalent to a 'God' or deity as most people discussing the subject would look at it. In my view again such a theory is so far removed from concepts of existing mainstream religions that it wouldn't/couldn't be considered for classification as a 'God' or deity.

Religions are typically dominated by believers - i.e. by people who are no longer looking, who have their eyes shut by beliefs.

 

[ManlyBacker]

Rex,
You therefore are obviously making an assumption that you see the Sun rise and rocks, and that they are conscious. You are also making a big assumption that I worship my thoughts but I get where you are heading with that. But then on your thinking (and are you really? 🙂) any thought by anyone on energy could be considered religious philiosophy. You may be right but it is strange that scientists are able to put forward views on possible 'abstractions' and find imperical evidence to advance our understanding. I'll personally go with what works but leave open the possibility that none of us know anything.

 

[Dan]

Rex,
You therefore are obviously making an assumption that you see the Sun rise and rocks, and that they are conscious. You are also making a big assumption that I worship my thoughts but I get where you are heading with that. But then on your thinking (and are you really? 🙂) any thought by anyone on energy could be considered religious philiosophy. You may be right but it is strange that scientists are able to put forward views on possible 'abstractions' and find imperical evidence to advance our understanding. I'll personally go with what works but leave open the possibility that none of us know anything.

Woah woah wait I thought if we had established anything it was that I know everything and the world revolves around me

 

[ManlyBacker]

Woah woah wait I thought if we had established anything it was that I know everything and the world revolves around me

That would explain why I feel a bit giddy.

 

[Dan]

Just swooning in my presence, women do it all the time. It gets a little old really

 

[Rex]

Rex,
You therefore are obviously making an assumption that you see the Sun rise and rocks, and that they are conscious.

Very clever grasshopper. To make sense of the world we build models. Every word is a model. Something that represents something else. And the model is not the object. I can't say anything to you without using models. There's the imperfection of communication.

I directly experience the sunshine, and the movement of the sunshine. To talk to you about that pure perception I have to use concepts and words. There is no choice. And as soon as I use concepts and words it is distorted.

The experience is not an abstraction. I call it the sun, an abstraction. I say it is rising, another abstraction. But the direct experience of the sun and its rising was not an abstraction.

Same with energy, it is directly experienced. Putting the experience into words and concepts is where abstractions (assumptions) arise.

I like theories too. Street directories are theories, useful ones. But the Sydney street directory isn't Sydney, no matter how accurately it predicts street names, street directions or street lengths.

 

[Dan]

Copout

 

[Rex]

me or you?

and how?

 

[Dan]

Your argument is boarish and based on similar assumptions, you use arguments that don't allow another person to reply bit are based solely on a view, inyour mind you have built an argument that makes sense but based it on parts that you argue can't be used to argue with. In essence your argument therefore is immediately nullified as is everyone else's.

It is therefore a copout and is an ideology as much as any other

 

[Rex]

Thanks Daniel. It's clear my clumsy attempts are not making my experience clear to you.

You may prefer the words of another:

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
The only real valuable thing is intuition.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.
The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
One had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler.
Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
I have just got a new theory of eternity.
I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.
I think and think for months and years. Ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right.
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. (for Matas)
If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.
It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion.
It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Never lose a holy curiosity.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.
Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them.
Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives.
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there.
To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

 

[ManlyBacker]

Well done Ironstine! Doesn't it seem strange to you that we can both read the words from him or from each other and despite the delicate intricacies of the language it really is quite clear what is being said and how easily we take on board those words despite the enormity of the ideas. Language is treated by you as some sort of limiting barrier to discussion but in reality I find its precision to be enlightening. Communication isn't perfect but circular attempts to prove that it can only result in anarchical thoughts are ridiculous.

 

[Dan]

It's a flawed argument simply by the fact that he uses language to try to point out that language is flawed, it therefore would immediately nullify itself as an argument

 

[Rex]

Doesn't it seem strange to you that we can both read the words from him or from each other and despite the delicate intricacies of the language it really is quite clear what is being said and how easily we take on board those words despite the enormity of the ideas.

Not at all. And it also doesn't surprise me in the slightest that people (maybe including you and I) hear and interpret different things from what he says.

Language is treated by you as some sort of limiting barrier to discussion ...

Never said that. Never thought that.

Communication isn't perfect but circular attempts to prove that it can only result in anarchical thoughts are ridiculous.

Never said or even thought what you are apparently accusing me of MB. Interesting.

---

It's a flawed argument simply by the fact that he uses language to try to point out that language is flawed, it therefore would immediately nullify itself as an argument

You believe language is not flawed then?